The Passion Of The Christ

[godardian]

mel gibson proved to be a master of his craft with Braveheart. :

WAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Yes... I agree with this. "Well-crafted" is not the term that comes to my mind when thinking of any film Gibson has directed... or even been in, really.

[Pas]

mel gibson proved to be a master of his craft with Braveheart. :

WAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Humpf, that was rather harsh. "Master of his craft" is exagarated but Braveheart was a fucking big movie with insane action sequences while Gibson was only at his second attempt as a director. The violence was good and original. By no mean a masterpiece but in terms of entertainment it's allright.

[A Matter Of Chance]

I haven't seen the movie, so I won't judge it yet, but I really agree with some of the things Ebert said, but if I think it's anti-semetic (which I don't think I will) that's the end of the line for it. I will say that I have some more respect for Mel now, since in the end, he made the film he wanted to make, a pretty admirable quality for a director. Also, I am really surprised that in today's day and age someone can make a movie and the masses will flock to believe it's reality.

[modage]

yeah but who cares if its anti-semetic?  hes putting up his own money to make whatever the hell statement he wants to make.  pro-jesus, anti-jew, its all propoganda.

[metroshane]

This site must run on 103 octane ego.

[samsong]

This site must run on 103 octane ego.

agreed

[Sleuth]

This site must run on 103 octane ego.

agreed

explain

[Jeremy Blackman]

Yes... I agree with this. "Well-crafted" is not the term that comes to my mind when thinking of any film Gibson has directed... or even been in, really.

I loved Braveheart aesthetically. Was I just gullible?

And the end. I think I cried at the end.

[prophet]

if you are reading this you are a dummy. anyways none of you would have been able to make this movie any better so shut the fuck up. Mel Gibson isnt just in hollywood because he has great eyes, hes still around because hes talanted.

[Myxo]

I wanna see the DVD commentary track for this.

[Sleuth]

if you are reading this you are a dummy. anyways none of you would have been able to make this movie any better so shut the fuck up. Mel Gibson isnt just in hollywood because he has great eyes, hes still around because hes talanted.

I want to argue but I'm not allowed to!

[Ghostboy]

I just got back from it. I agree with Ebert, and would also give it four stars. It's not perfect, but its flaws are no more greivous than those in Last Temptation, which I also love.

Maybe I have deeper resources of lapsed Catholicism than I thought I did, because I was consistently moved to the point of tears. It's wrenching. The violence was gratuitious, but I think it was just. Whether or not you believe that Jesus is anything more than a man, I think it's impossible not to feel compassion for this portrayal of him. I guess it could be argued that Gibson, by using such extreme violence, is goading viewers to compassion, but I didn't feel that. I think the violence is valuabe because it's going to remind people just what that symbol is hanging on their wall...the crucifix has become such a bland image that the reinforcement gere of what it actually was is something that I think will be very positive.

Furthermore, if Gibson's intent was simply to revel in the gore, he wouldn't have cut away to Mary's reaction for a good portion of the scourging. The character of Mary is one of my favorite aspects of the film; her portrayal in Scorsese's film (and in Kazaantzakis novel) was one  of my big problems with it, and here I feel her character is delved into more fully, and the impact her son's torture and death has on her is accurately portrayed. One of the things I like about Catholicism is the maternal aspect of it, and that is portrayed well here.

Overall, the film is very well made, very poetic; the intercutting of the arrival in Jersualem and the last supper with the crucifixion is extremely well done. I had a lot of problems with some of the slow-mo and ramping effects used at the beginning scenes, but I think they would have been less objectionable had the film not been subtitled -- the lack of understandable dialogue would have been negated by the emphatic camare work (overall, I'm glad it was subtitled, because every now and then there's a line that deserves to be understood; but there are lots scenes that don't have them, and I think they could have gotten away with using them even less). Likewise, there are some scenes that could have used a little less dramatic score (particularly the destruction of the temple).

The demonic elements, which I wasn't aware of, aside from the nicely done androgynous incaranation of Satan, are mostly very interesting/frightening (especially one that seems like something out of a David Lynch movie), although the final shot of Satan in the film was pointless and distracting.

The anti-semtisim -- well, either you see it or you don't. As has been said in other reviews, it's no more anti-semitic than the bible. What I'm surprised no one has mentioned is the brief scene involving Herod, where he's portrayed as prancing, overtly fey ruler; if it was anyone but Gibson making the movie, it might be ignored (there's a similar character in Gladiator that I never heard any furor over), but in this case I doubt it would be. The scene was largely unnecessary, anyway. The MOST offensive thing about the movie was the Garfield trailer they showed before it.

Also, the message of love -- love your enemies, etc, which is a beautiful one and one of the great things about what Jesus taught -- is conveyed excellently during the Last Supper; a few minutes later, during the crucifixion, one of the thieves dying at Jesus' side laughs at him and promptly has his eyeball plucked out by a crow. It's a cheap, pointless moment. These two moments blatantly contradict each other, and are an excellent microcosm of almost every problem there is with Christianity.

But still, I think it's a work of art, an important film, and not necessarily as volatile as it's going to be made out to be. It's also going to make a lot of money...I don't the violence is going to detract devoutly religious people from going back to see it again, because it's so emotional.

Obviously, if you've reading this thread,  I've been hoping that it would be a good film. I'm interested to see what Godardian and JB and those of you not looking forward to it think. Also, I'm really interested in what Scorsese thinks of it, if he goes to see it, which I imagine he will.

[Weak2ndAct]

Apparently, the Passion is so powerful it can FUCKING KILL YOU:

Go to www.drudgereport.com for the story.

Basically, some woman had a violent seizure/heart-attack during the end of the film and died soon after.

[metroshane]

Thanks for the review Ghostboy.

[Stefen]

I wonder what the 5 day take will be? Cause you know if it does good more will be coming, but for different reasons. MONEY.